Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ajai Kumar Vats v. State Of U.P. & Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 10648 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 13462 (3 August 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 10648 of 2007

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble K.N. Ojha, J.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

The impugned first information report has been lodged by the Manager of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited alleging that the petrol pump in question (retail outlet) is company owned petrol pump. The dealership of the petitioner was terminated on 30.6.2007. On 3.7.2007, the company itself started running that petrol pump. On 5.7.2007, the petitioner obtained an ex parte order from a Civil Court in Delhi restraining the respondent from terminating the petitioner's dealership and also directing supply and sales of the petitioner to be restored. In the garb of this order, the petitioner came with a gang of 50 members on 12.7.2007 and forcibly captured the petrol pump.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was voluntarily handed over possession by the employees of Bharat Petroleum, who were running the petrol pump. This story is bogus.

The employees of the company would never do such a thing without orders from higher officers of the Company. How could they hand over the stocks of petrol etc., to the petitioner without payment.

Moreover firstly, we are not satisfied that any civil Court could possibly grant this kind of injunction if it had been apprised of the fact that after terminating the agency, the petitioner was no more in possession of the petrol pump and the petroleum company was running the petrol pump on the date when this injunction was passed. This would amount to granting the final relief of the suit by an interim order, that too ex parte.

Secondly, this injunction is not for delivery of possession by the company to the petitioner.

Thirdly, even the civil Court orders of possession can not be executed by the decree holder of his own or with the police help. There is a complete procedure provided under the Civil Procedure Code for execution of orders for possession of immovable property.

Considering these circumstances and in order to ensure that people do not start taking law in their own hands, we do not consider it desirable to either quash the first information report or stay the arrest.

The writ petition is dismissed as above.  

Dated: August 3, 2007



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.